Nightingale v Goulbourn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1848 |
| Date | 01 January 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 1072
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 5 Hare, 489; 17 L. J. Ch. 296; 12 Jur. (O. S.), 317. As to bequests held void as charitable gifts, see Loscombe v. Wintringham, 1850, 13 Beav. 91 n.
nightingale v. goulbourn. Jan. 1848. [S. C. 5 Hare, 489; 17 L. J. Ch. 296 ; 12 Jur. (O. S.), 317. As to bequests held void as charitable gifts, see Loscombe v. Wintringluim, 1850, 13 Beav. 91 n.]. It is no criterion of the invalidity of a charity bequest that it is not capable of being administered in this Court; for that is the case in every charity gift which is 2 PH. 698. NIGHTINGALE I'. GOULBOTJRN 1073 administered by the sign manual: but it is a, criterion where the question is whether the gift be charitable or not. A bequest of residue " to the Queen's Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, and to be by him appropriated to the benefit and advantage of my beloved country Great Britain," held to be a good charity bequest. And, sembk, that the selection of a particular officer of the Government as trustee marks the mode of application sufficiently to preclude the exercise of any discretion on that subject. This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Wigram (reported in t Hare, 484), on the effect of a residuary bequest in a will--" To the Queen's Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, and to be by him appropriated to the benefit and advantage of my beloved country Great Britain." Mr. Romilly and Mr. Bell, for the Plaintiff, the Appellant, who was one of the next of kin. Mr. Twiss and Mr. Wray, for the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in support of the decree. The topics used in argument, and the authorities cited, were the same as in the Court below. [595] the lord chancellor [Cottenham], after observing that the fund was pure personalty, and, therefore, that there was no question on the Mortmain Act, but that if the legacy was good, it was clearly a charity legacy in the large sense of that term, as adopted in Attorney-General v. Brown (1 Swan. 265), Attorney-General v. Heelis (2 Sim. & St. 67), Attorney-General v. Corporation of Dublin (1 Bligh. N. S. 312)- proceeded as follows:- Many bequests have been held good charitable gifts to parishes, towns, counties, and provinces : West v. Knight (1 Ca. in Ch. 134), Attoi'-ne//-General v. Mayor of Carlisle (2 Sim. 437), Attorney-General v. Lord Lonsdale (1 Sim. 105), Mitford v. Reynolds (1 Phill. 185); and so have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brisbane City Council v Attorney General for Queensland
...Railway Co. v. British and French Trust Corporation Ltd.[1939] A.C. 1; [1938] 4 All E.R. 747, H.L.(E.). Nightingale v. Goulbourn (1848) 2 Ph. 594. Oxford Group v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1949] 2 All E.R. 537, C.A. Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association v. Chester (1974......
-
Central Bayside General Practice Association Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue
...v Eastlake (1853) 11 Hare 205 [ 68 ER 1249]. 116 [1950] VLR 382. 117 See, eg, Nightingale v Goulbourn (1848) 2 Ph 594 at 596 [ 41 ER 1072 at 1073] referred to at [1950] VLR 382 at 118 [1950] VLR 382 at 387. 119 [1950] VLR 382 at 388. 120 (1826) 2 Sim & St 594 [ 57 ER 473]. 121 See, eg, Att......
-
Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd v HM Attorney General
...Newland v Attorney General (1809) 3 Mer 684, Ashton v Lord Langdale (1851) 4 De G & S 402 and Nightingale v Goulbourn (1847) 5 Hare 484; (1848) 2 Ph 594, where a testamentary gift to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was expressly impressed with a trust for Great Britain.” 71 (We were told th......
-
The Attorney-General of the Cayman Islands (Third Appellant) v Even Wahr-Hansen
...185; 41 E.R. 602; [1835–42] All E.R. Rep. 331, distinguished. (8) Nightingale v. GoulburnENR(1847), 5 Hare 484; 67 E.R. 1003; on appeal (1848), 2 Ph. 594; 41 E.R. 1072; [1843–60] All E.R. Rep. 420, distinguished. (9) Smith, In re, Public Trustee v. Smith, [1932] 1 Ch. 153; [1931] All E.R. R......